Why does every player over 30 yrs old hate Warhammer 40k? Kinda annoying...i mean they seem like the same game to me...

Hate is such a strong word... I doint hate 40K, i just hate GW for what they are doing to it!

Streamlining rules. Its a simple game, involving litttle tactical thought. Games can be easily determined from lists. And despite its ''simplicity'', the rules are horrendously done, 'Mixed Armour' for example.

Fantasy is where the Pros are :)

As a general rule, I find the usual assaults on 40k to be terrifically short-sighted. I enjoy 40k b/c I find it to be far, far more tactically flexible, from list-building onwards. The games are chess and checkers, though. Anyone who claims one is "better" than the other is biased, and nothing more. There's also a lot of condescending hating done by both sides a la the above "xyz is where the pros are." I find this silly.

The whole thinig is silly.

Phoenix, not to take offense at your comments, but "little tactical thought, simple game" = blatantly inaccurate. It's a common refrain among the post-initiated "40k haters." As far as I can tell, it is based on no real thought whatsoever, more often than not based off a fantasy-player's mindset.

An example: A fantasy player I know claims the lack of different movement rates takes away a huge amount of strategy. I claim this to be inaccurate, that it is simply DIFFERENT loads of strategy. In fantasy, movement rates are critical b/c of the importance of lining up the few critical charges that can make or break the game. Warhammer 40k is entirely different from this ... chess/checkers. Different playstyles and tactics built around different rulesets.

40k haters, like fantasy haters, are simply "haters," or "condescenders" if hate is too strong a word. They have NO valid complaints.

Rikimaru is over 40 years old and plays 40k; you could say he's a Tau genius. So obviously, he doesn't hate the game. I think it's a poor generalisation that older players hate the game; at least as many, if not more, younger players would rather play a different game (WHFB, PP games, etc.) instead of 40k, and I'm starting to include myself in that grouping. Perhaps the older players around your area don't enjoy 40k, but that doesn't mean it's true universally.

Hmmm... I'm turning 30 here in a few months. Does that mean I need to start hating 40k? 0:

As a fan of both games I give a resounding "whatever" to arguments for and against the supremacy of either. They're games. Stop the comparisons and just enjoy them.

I'm only 15. Iv'e played both games and while I like Warhammer Fantasy better overall, I don't hate 40k.

Hmmm... I'm turning 30 here in a few months. Does that mean I need to start hating 40k? 0:


Yes.


I'm starting to dis like 40k, simply for the reason that GW is ruining the game by making it for kids like 16 and under. Making the fluff lame, ruining almost all of what is dark and evil about it. And soon to be changing to about as dark as Star Wars.

GW, please make the game ment for older and mature people agian :(

But i figure we will know what way GW is taking this game when the DE get redone.


...Wow, got a little off topic, but maybe that could be why alot of people gate 40k now, not so much the game as GW.

Well, according to my wife I'm "almost 30" and I still play and enjoy both games! The only thing I will say on the matter is in my opinion Fantasy is less susceptible (but not immune) to inexperienced/less skilled players being able to beat the tar out of more experienced/more skilled players by simply using 'beardy' army lists from the internet. Hence the perception that 40K is for 'kiddies.' Between players of similar skill, there's still plenty of more/less competitive lists (and parallel declamations of 'cheese') in Fantasy.

(also maybe we 'older' folks are inclined to automatically think more experienced equates linearly to better player and resent losing to "kids" ... ;) )

Meh... there's no reason to degrade either the system or the players in it. On either side of the boundary. Arguments about tactical depth are silly, because if I wanted tactical depth, I wouldn't be playing a GW game. They are a models company first, foremost, and pretty much (by the state of their rules) only. The games are not realistic, particularly detailed in rules depth, or overly intellectually straining.

Arguments about one set of players being more mature are similarly silly, because a) the populations of both, from what I've seen, are homogenous, and b) a lot of people play both. It's like the age-old WoW rivalry between Alliance scum and Horde- one only reviles them because they're on the other side of the fence.

You know why I play 40k? Because I like the background, I like the models, and I like the feeling I get when I engage in battles in the far future where close combat is teh sex. I mean, chainswords, lightning claws, thunder hammers, force weapons, powered weapons, Harlequin's Kisses, and more chainswords just for fun... 8Y

Well to end this arguement you could just say, that too people who don't play ethier game we all are a bunch of losers who play with little "army toys" for 18 hours at a time. :P
So ethier way you look at it, we're all just playing with "toys."

Remember that FB is older than 40K and so people who would have been old enough to start back then would've had to play FB - there wasn't the choice! ^_^

Most of the guys at my club are in the 35-50 age bracket, each one having three or four fully painted armies under their belts which they've been using for years. I guess you could say that FB is so ingrained in them that they have no real need to play 40K.

That's the way I see it anyway.

Older players are more likely to be nostalgic about the older versions of the game and more likely to have some experience with other game systems. Both can lead to criticism of the current game. Hatred is likely too strong a word for most.

Its a simple game, involving litttle tactical thought. Games can be easily determined from lists.

I think a lot of that mentality stems from most people playing Space Marines. I probably shouldn't say much as a Chaos Player, but I think armies that don't use MEQs are a bit more tactical than MEQ armies.

I like 40k because of the sci-fi theme, although I will probably take up Fantasy as soon as I finish my current army. Either that or I'll try to start a necromunda league...

I don't know, but I find the game highly tactical. When facing players who rely entirely on listhammering, I tear them apart, even if they are using a technically superior list.

I see a lot of fantasy players get into 40k, build terrible or plain stupid lists, get blown away, and call it "gay" or stupid or whatever. It's plain old fashioned not giving the game a chance.

I also like the fact that in 40k many more dice are involved, and saving or cover throws are more reliable and unmodifiable/predictable. In Fantasy, one bad roll of your 5 or so dice on that one critical charge that you've spent all game lining up and you're boofed ... too bad you had one bad dice roll. Far less likely to happen in the dice-heavier game of 40k, and I like that.

Nevertheless, I'd never call 40k "better" or "worse." It's fundamentally different, and if you play it with a Fantasy-bred mindset you're going to get owned and call the game stupid or whatever other insult you can think of. Yes, there are lots of kids who play 40k ... marines/necrons are easy to pick up and figure the basics of. But honestly, there are plenty of kids who play Fantasy too. Generalizations make me want to do unpleasant things to the complainers on both sides.

Both games are what you make them, I like and prefer 40K and especially Tau and Nids. I do not play much fantasy I just find it can be somewhat tedious to play. Not to say fantasy is a bad game far from it, I occasionally just find it a bit long winded to achieve even some the simplest result. I do however like its tactical depth (even if some of the rules get in the way).
I have had some great games of fantasy and I have quite a few armies (Dwarfs, Empire, Vampire Counts, Dark Elves and Chaos) and I do play now and again but I prefer 40K. Does not mean I hate fantasy

40K is a streamlined game but that does not mean it lacks tactical and game-play depth. If you do not believe that then just try playing a good experienced 40k player. I play a pure assault Nids list and Tau and both lists need skill to get the best out of them. Yep I could get some wins simply by rushing everything forward etc, but to win consistently needs skill. Yes it is easier to get a satisfying game out of 40K but try entering a higher level tournie with say a Marine force and basic experience and see how far you get.

I have never come across anyone who hates 40K, not like it yeah but hate is to strong a word. I have come across players who look down on it. To those who do look down on it I always say the same thing, "If you think it so easy to play lets see how long it takes you to win three games against me" funny I have never had that challenge taken up yet.
Gamer snobbery is always there, be it armies, game system etc. It is always how it has been and it will always be.

I think GW are slowly ruining 40K but not by the rules, but more through a lack of respect for the gamers. Removing support options like chapter approved and FAQs etc and a shameful neglect of the fluff that has been built up for the game.

As a player of both fantasy and 40k, I gotta say they're both good for their own reasons and bad for their own. Fantsy relies way to much on charging and it can be pretty hero hammer at times, 40k leadership is something that doesn't really exist due to every army having leadership 9 or 10 in some form and can be pretty hero hammer at times.

But LOTR Warhammer. Theres nothing good about LOTR warhammer.

I play both, and play both as long as the other.

When I want magic, elves and dwarfs, I start up a game of FB.

When I want lasers, jump packs and tanks, I start up a game of 40k.

I 'dislike' FB because:
- of the combat resolutions.
- the strict movement rules.
- the limited amount of attacks in cc.

I 'dislike' 40k because:
- mixed rules/clarifications.
- you are often forced into a cheesy/beardy list.
- codeci are changed way too fast.

Hate is a bit of weird word to use for a game. I mean, you don't have to play it...

Yes, when players gets the grips of they're army it becomes very tactical. Its almost purely what gets me wins against armies like eldar or tyranids, and yes things like Necrons are easy to get the grips of, but mastering the army is very difficult. The only reason I would dis-like 40k is that I dont like the tactical strategy of Space Marine armies(nothing against the players, its the codex). They arent built like they're fluff, right now they're just a jack of trades but they should specialize in quick sudden critical strikes.

40k is different in that nearly every unit shoot and it has simpler rules. Thats the only differance I see.
Oh and the armour peircing rule from Warhammer is different so that uber characters can be hurt easier than in 40k.

There was a time when Fantasy and 40k weren't so different from each other. This time was called 2nd Edition 40k, when each separate race had their own individual movement values, Terminators took 3+ armour saves on a 2d6, and armour save modifiers ran rampant amongst the various nasty guns that everyone could take. What people found (and I'm only speculating here, I honestly have never played 2nd Edition before) was that armour save modifiers were a little silly when even the lowly Bolter had the same effect as last edition's Choppas and any Marine player who has played against Orks knows how frustrating it is to engage a unit in close combat, not kill them, and have them force you to make 4+ armour saves for your rather expensive infantry.

Why am I saying this? Because it was only two editions ago that 40k could be likened to Fantasy in space and it's possible that Games Workshop has been trying to differentiate the two systems for the past several editions. I still think that 40k needs more time to grow into its own unique game and hopefully the result will be that much better once it's done, but for now I'll wait in hope of 5th Edition. After all, Fantasy didn't really become its current incarnation until around 5th Edition, with 6th Ed. finally working out the kinks of Herohammer and putting the army (rather than the heroes) front and center stage. Even then, I've heard people say that 6th Ed. Fantasy was dumbed down because they had to drop the extra flying rules and the 'epic' feel that came from two heroes meeting in single combat before subsequently destroying the entire opposing army. Inevitably you can't please everyone but that's not to say that there is no strategy at all in 40k ever.

Just a few weeks ago I was playing an Omega level Cleanse mission against an opposing Marine army and he had infiltrated a lone tactical squad near my deployment zone to hold his flank. My Assault Marines arrived from reserve on Turn 2 and subsequently charged into the flank of his army, breaking it and allowing me free reign to wreak havoc on his lines. Certainly, I didn't get any numerical bonuses for moving onto the flanks and charging that one squad but had my opponent observed that fast units would be able to move onto the table and charge from reserves, he would have protected his flanks, and thus his entire army, more effectively. There are certainly many reasons why a person could say that Fantasy has more tactics involved but bonuses for charging people in the flanks and rear certainly is not one of them. It also happens to be the argument I hear the most and the fact that 40k does not have static combat resolution in the same way that Fantasy has does not bother me in the slightest.

Incidentally, I've found that maneuvering and such is quite cumbersome in Fantasy, which doesn't really appeal to me at all. I prefer Wood Elves for this reason, they have rather flexible and fluid units that don't require me to pay attention to where they're placed around the clock. Once you start moving a unit, it's rare that you'll get to make drastic changes to its direction. It's lovely to see your own train wrecks unfold before you but not be able to stop them, whereas in 40k there is still very much a chance to fight your way out of elaborate traps.

I'll toss my two dice in...

I'm one of the 40K haters. However, it actually has nothing to do with the game.

I would like to play, but there is just so much emphasis on the space marines that it turns me off of it. In fantasy, there are still favored armies of course, but not to the extent GW goes with 40K. I personally find the SM to be one of the least interesting armies - soldiers "bred" to fight, fearing nothing, saviors of the empire, etc. They come across as one dimensional fanboy fodder.

The other thing that keeps me away are the teenie-boppers. I've been described as 27 going on 50. Every time that I've drifted into a GW store, the majority of the 40K players have been around 14 years old. From a social stance that doesn't appeal. I want an opponent I can interact with socially, someone who is at least old enough to buy their own beer.

Some of this is GW's fault, some is just happenstance, and some of it may be elitism from me. But all of it together has left me with a bad taste in my mouth regarding 40K.

Well, according to my wife I'm "almost 30" and I still play and enjoy both games! The only thing I will say on the matter is in my opinion Fantasy is less susceptible (but not immune) to inexperienced/less skilled players being able to beat the tar out of more experienced/more skilled players by simply using 'beardy' army lists from the internet. Hence the perception that 40K is for 'kiddies.' Between players of similar skill, there's still plenty of more/less competitive lists (and parallel declamations of 'cheese') in Fantasy.

(also maybe we 'older' folks are inclined to automatically think more experienced equates linearly to better player and resent losing to "kids" ... ;) )

I have to agree here. The complex rules act as a good filter to weed out teeniebobbers.

Also, I hate babies.

I have to agree here. The complex rules act as a good filter to weed out teeniebobbers.

Also, I hate babies.

Complex rules, errrm Ok, I have known plenty of teenie boppers who can cream older players at fantasy. My son for instance was playing Vampire Counts, Chaos and Empire in local tournies at 10yrs old and did quite well against players a lot older than himself. Age is no guarantee of intelligence dude and I would hardly call fantasy/40K rules complex enough to baffle most youngsters of around 12 yrs.
As for the cheese/beardy list point, this is just as easy to do with fantasy as 40K. Anyone can look on the forums and find uber powerful lists, with both systems. No list exists that can guarantee a win and beardy/cheese will only get you so far.

Complex rules, errrm Ok, I have known plenty of teenie boppers who can cream older players at fantasy. My son for instance was playing Vampire Counts, Chaos and Empire in local tournies at 10yrs old and did quite well against players a lot older than himself. Age is no guarantee of intelligence dude and I would hardly call fantasy/40K rules complex enough to baffle most youngsters of around 12 yrs.
As for the cheese/beardy list point, this is just as easy to do with fantasy as 40K. Anyone can look on the forums and find uber powerful lists, with both systems. No list exists that can guarantee a win and beardy/cheese will only get you so far.

I was hoping that my post would escape your wrath but I was sorely mistaken.

I was hoping that my post would escape your wrath but I was sorely mistaken.

Heh, well I would hardly call it wrath.

i play both games as well as necromunda, battlefleet gothic, priveterpress's hordes, and rackums confrontation. And the only thing i hate about any of those games are whiners, cheaters and snobs, they exist in each game though 40k seams to cultivate whiners over the other systems. a game is only as good as the opponent.

i think the thing most people have problems with are other people playing the game. ill play verses any list, but not with any list. does that make sense?

what i am trying to say is the games are different in intent, they proved different experiences and require unique approaches in thought to get the full appreciation. any problem you have with the game itself is a problem you have with yourself, the only justified problem is one with your opponent, and this can be negated by playing a good game that encourages and sets a good role module for them.